Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

Was Dred Scott properly decided? Given the constitution as

Posted on: October 22, 2019 at 12:55:36 CT
hokie VT
Posts:
68174
Member For:
9.66 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
10
it stood in 1856, and the legal enslavement of blacks, could the argument be made that scott was as chief justice taney wrote, not a citizen of missouri and therefor had no standing to sue the united states?

Also, the fugitive slave act of 1850 said that any slaves in free territory could be captured and returned to their owners. So even though scott was taken to free territory by his owner, that act did not per the fugitive slave act make him free.

Libs, please spare me the epithets and cries of racist. Heard them all before and if that is all you have, save your key strokes and your pique.

Conservatives don't like judicial activism. And if tanney had ruled in favor of scott, would he not have been guilty of exactly that, ignoring the constitution on the issue and replacing it with what he thought best?

One reason we have such an issue with abortion is that it was never legislated into existence but rather "found" as a "right" in the constitution. That of course is preposterous, regardless of your feelings on the issue.

Slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment. It was passed, signed, and ratified by the states. It is inarguable. Until it was abolished, it was legal. Immoral but legal, and the justices on the supreme court were as today, not charged with making laws but with applying the constitution to issues of law that came before it.

Again, save your histrionics and lame virtue signaling for other issues. I would be interested in reasoned replies, devoid of personal attack.

That should limit the discussion to the right side of the political spectrum on this board.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/ScottvSandford.html
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Was Dred Scott properly decided? Given the constitution as - hokie VT - 10/22 12:55:36
     Here's something people don't know. In 1781 - GA Tiger MU - 10/22 14:48:45
     SCOTUS for the first 70 years was controlled - MrBlueSky MU - 10/22 13:17:27
          So you're arguing fairness and racism instead of the - hokie VT - 10/22 13:28:49
               No, I'm arguing the facts on the ground - MrBlueSky MU - 10/22 13:29:54
                    Voted in elections, really? So your argument is that - hokie VT - 10/22 13:33:43
                         My argument would be that if anyone was guilty of activism - Mormad MU - 10/22 13:38:29
                              I agree that his writings on the missouri compromise were - hokie VT - 10/22 13:42:52
                                   Probably so - Mormad MU - 10/22 13:49:40
                                        Excellent point re moving to a free state, if that had been - hokie VT - 10/22 13:59:16
                                             That was Scott's argument.. - MrBlueSky MU - 10/22 14:56:30
                                             That was essentially Scott's argument - Mormad MU - 10/22 14:02:42
                              Correct, but Taney took it a step further and he was trying - MrBlueSky MU - 10/22 13:42:19
                                   Which has nothing to do with the merits of the case. nm - hokie VT - 10/22 13:43:43
                                        He made it part of the case, so of course it does - MrBlueSky MU - 10/22 13:45:27
                                             As I said, Taney was being the "activist" - Mormad MU - 10/22 13:52:38
                         Lol, he was a bigot. Roger Taney tried to say that - MrBlueSky MU - 10/22 13:36:39
                              Never said he wasn't a bigot. I only said that that is all - hokie VT - 10/22 13:40:48
                                   You've ignored every thing else I said. (nm) - MrBlueSky MU - 10/22 13:41:17
                                        The make-up of the court was pro-slave State - Mormad MU - 10/22 13:43:52
                                             Ideology is important say the libs re SCOTUS. They - hokie VT - 10/22 13:52:57
                                                  That's because you're misinterpreting what I said - Mormad MU - 10/22 13:58:01
                                                       Apologies. I did not mean to suggest that you advocated - hokie VT - 10/22 14:04:47
                                                            I would think, sitting on the court would be difficult - Mormad MU - 10/22 14:07:45
                                                                 I'm starting to wonder if it has always been thus. The - hokie VT - 10/22 14:16:48
                                                                      I think it depends on whether your ox is being gored - Mormad MU - 10/22 14:23:18
     Excerpt from tanney. - hokie VT - 10/22 12:58:16
          is this a topic from last nights KKK meeting? - ashtray UF - 10/22 13:01:03
               lol (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU - 10/22 13:07:07
               If incapable of reasoned debate, please shut up. nm - hokie VT - 10/22 13:02:07
                    if you held yourself to that standard - pickle MU - 10/22 13:07:16
                    oh, it's not me I'm worried about - ashtray UF - 10/22 13:03:35
                    Yet you vomited the OP...... - mizzoumurfkc KC - 10/22 13:03:21
                         Can you address the issue, or merely signal your - hokie VT - 10/22 13:08:55




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard